The Tragegdy of L&D

I used the diagram above at the HR technology conference in Amsterdam to illustrate the way in which various learning interventions (described in the Field Guide) interact with affective context. By way of explanation,the learner's concern (or degree of affective context) is given along the bottom, the relative ability of the learning intervention to impart concern along the top. If you are new to 'affective context' then I should point out that it is not 'emotion' or 'motivation' as we normally understand them; rather shorthand for 'the way system 1 stores & processes information'.

Different interventions suit different kinds of learner: if you were really concerned about something - say a troubling medical symptom - you would be quick to research it. If you're not really concerned about something, then a different, more compelling approach will be required to generate the kind of concern that would precipitate learning. A story perhaps, or being placed in a challenging situation (or simulation of it).

And it is now that the twofold tragedy of L&D becomes clear: the vast majority of actual learning (circa 90%) happens as the left hand side of the diagram, where people are responding to challenges. And yet L&D wastes its time and money at the right hand side: trying to teach people stuff they don't really feel is important. It's actually really hard to get someone to care about something (because the kind of care I am talking about is predominantly a system 1 function)  - it would be so much better to focus on resources which have a fighting chance of having a real business impact.

And so the second tragedy becomes clear: if you really wanted someone to care about something - and I accept that this is a noble aspiration - you wouldn't do it by dumping content on them. To give an example: if employees really cared about data security, they could learn everything they needed to know very easily, on the web. But instead of thinking of ways to instill concern, the tradition of content fly-tipping continues. Because learning is not understood; because it is thought of as 'knowledge-transfer'.

So L&D routinely focuses on doing the wrong things, in the wrong way.

But there is a third tragedy, I suppose: I bumped into someone who remembered seeing me speak at a CIPD conference in 2007, where I talked about the affective dimension of learning & shared a 'donut diagram' illustrating the way in which we wrap information in affective context. Two years earlier I spoke at a Marcus Evans conference and had delegates cut a peach in half to illustrate the same point. Eight years on, I wonder if I am doing a good job of persuading L&D to be concerned about concern. Oh well, back to the Morris dancing.